I've got so much to contribute, but am working 80hr weeks right now keeping the world in ketchup, tomato sauce and salsas.
Should taper off in few days.
as i see it the solutrean hyp. is flawed but not for the same reasons you hold.
Am important clue is the paired distribution of Hg c and x there are several studies on this that raise more questions than they answer.

And theres more to it than biface tools and what constitutes s "Clovis "lithic tradition

Originally posted by punkinworks10
You do realize that you opened a giant can o worms, being carried by a barrel of monkeys

Also calling member Skalla, your input of knapping tecniques would be appreciated and of value to the discussion

Of course that is why I did it - I've been opening cans of (archaeological) worms for inspection for quite some time.

Archaeology is essentially a long series of contentions, piffle, fighting and gathering evidence, publishing it and then defending that publication
and its conclusion from a bunch of yahoo's who seem to think your an idiot who doesn't know the basics - and that is how it should be and is.

My favourite memory is of a meeting in Cyprus when the various archaeological teams in country got together to discuss what had happened that season
(there was no internet) a fist fight broke out between the French and British team over the naming of pottery and its association with level VII or
VIIa. I always chuckle when I see fringe believers acting like archaeology is some monolithic organization control by 'them'- its always humourous!

Let the skirmishing and exchange of information begin !!

Punkinworks like you I have a looming dead line to finish something, which involves research, reading and typing - exactly what I do here this will
limit my time here this summer as I may take a position overseas in fall.

Originally posted by Hanslune
My opinion is that the hypothesis is not proven by quality of the evidence provided for tool comparison between those stones found in Europe and NA.

The plausibility of movement between Europe and NA along the Ice age sea ice

The present ambiguity in the DNA evidence

My opinion is that it is not 'proven' either, if one looks solely on the scant data that we have at hand today. But I believe that the data paints a
picture which makes the Solutrean connexion more likely than unlikely. It is also my belief that in archaeology, we will have to actively work towards
the possibility that the theory is true. If there is a 'l'Anse aux Meadows' out there, ie a site that will establish beyond reasonable doubt that
there was a Solutrean presence in America, then it is probable that it will be found underwater, thanks to the rising coastlines that the end of the
last glaciation brought with it. Underwater archaeology is still in an embryonic phase (the use of 'mailboxes' and dredging often makes archaeologists
shudder). It is expensive, and in a dire need of funding. It is not going to happen if we don't take the theory seriously.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Archaeology is essentially a long series of contentions, piffle, fighting and gathering evidence, publishing it and then defending that publication
and its conclusion from a bunch of yahoo's who seem to think your an idiot who doesn't know the basics - and that is how it should be and is.

I really could live without the attacks and the marathon bickering. A peer to peer review is at best constructive criticism of work done, method and
hypothesis. At worst it is entrenched, territorial disputes, where larger than life egos search and destroy the work of colleagues simply because they
conflict with their own theories.

As punkinworks10, I have a full time job and a full time family to handle, and even though the summer slows things down a bit I still have limited
time to offer in this forum. If all 'alternative' inputs and theories are systematically attacked and ridiculed because they do not comply with what
certain textbooks claim to be the truth, then it will be a long and tedious thread I won't participate in.

That said, all opinions have the right to be expressed.

edit on 18-7-2013 by Heliocentric because: Can you hear it now? Or are we too far
apart? It’s calling our names.

Yes, you're right about the Hobbits, Svante Pääbo and his team at the Max Planck Institute will no doubt be able to handle the turmoils the
Denisovian finger has created, but there are other examples of people who were ridiculed because they followed the data, not the general opinion.

Any science, established or non-established, should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and criticism. Humility while facing conflicting opinions is a
rare quality though, something that I'm working on myself.

Sometimes, farfetched theories turn out to be true 30 years later, and established theories turn out to be wrong 30 years later. That's something to
think about before attending an auto da-fé.

In my professional life I have to put up with some of the crap. Here I don't, that's all I'm saying.

Who won the fistfight between the Brits and the French by the way? Let me guess, there was no winner...

The Cinmar bipoint was dredged up in 1970 by Capt. Thurston Shawn from the waters off shore from Hampton, Virginia. It is named after the
captain’s ship. It came up with a mastodon skull which provided the radiocarbon date of 22,760 +/- 90 RCYBP (UCIAMS-53545). The depth of the find
was from 38-40 fathoms in the Atlantic.

Sure looks solutrean, doesnt it.

he Smithsonian Institution tested the rhyolite and found it was from South Mountain in Pennsylvania. The well-made bipoint has a length-wise
slight curve which is the result of its initial manufacture from a large flake or spall. This is suggested by the very small remnant platform at one
end. Otherwise, it is flaked bifacially. It has polish from usage and the patination is light due to its water-buried environment. It has several
large, bold flake scars; however, none of the scars transverse from edge-to-edge across each face. The cross-section is biconvex which suggests an
alternate manufacturing technique of large cobble biface reduction. Edge trim has microflaking scars which finalized its shape and provided a sharp
edge. It was probably a hafted implement. It has pointed and semi-round ends (base and tip). Figures 1 and 2 show both faces. The Cinmar bipoint is
easily a classic Solutrean bipoint which was made from American stone. With its date, rhyolite is suggested as the first choice of U. S. bipoint
makers.

Continental Shelf Bifaces
Looking over the abstracts for the Paleoamerican Odyssey conference in Santa Fe this October I came across an illustration next to the abstract "North
America Before Clovis:Variance in Temporal/Spatial Cultural Patterns, 24,000-13,000 BP" by Michael Collins, Dennis Stanford, and Darin Lowery.
Elsewhere, It has been stated that 4 additional "laurel leaf" blades have been brought up from the continental shelf, in addition to the Cinmar blade
which appeared on the cover of "Across Atlantic Ice". The first blade on the left here is the Cinmar blade. I believe the other 4 must be the other
ones brought up from the continental shelf. Does anyone have any information on the details of their recovery?

It's age puts it at the very beginning of solutrean culture in Europe. At that time solutrean wasn't even that developed. It predates the use of such
stone work in the solutrean core area by several hundred years .

Solutrean Industry was a short-lived style of toolmaking that flourished approximately 17,000 to 21,000 years ago in southwestern France (e.g., at
Laugerie-Haute and La Solutré) and in nearby areas. The industry is of special interest because of its particularly fine workmanship. The Solutrean
industry, like those of other late Paleolithic big-game hunters, contained a variety of tools such as burins (woodworking tools rather like chisels),
scrapers, and borers; but blades that were formed in the shape of laurel or willow leaves and shouldered points are the implements that distinguish
the Solutrean.

In the early Solutrean, unifacial points (flaked on only one side) are common. In the middle Solutrean, these are gradually replaced by laurel-leaf
blades and bifacial points. Tiny blunt-backed flint blades and scrapers and single-shouldered points also occur. Bizarre implements, with notches or
asymmetrical shapes, appear; these and laurel-leaf blades so fine as to have precluded their use as tools suggest the production of fine-flaked
implements for purposes of luxury alone. In the late Solutrean, the willow-leaf blade (slim, with rounded ends and retouching on one side only) of
extremely fine workmanship made its appearance.

So we have quite the conundrum here. We have a collection of wonderfully crafted points from the continental shelf of Virginia, some made of stone
from Pennsylvania, in a pattern that shows up in Europe several centuries later. Hmmmm.
Any one who follows these discussions should know that I've been a proponent of a very early entrance into the Americas, and we have what appears to
be evidencence for a west to east transfer of technology.
That is a very interesting new bit of information, when combined with the results of this recent genetics study , that shows native American
admixture into European populations.

Earlier this year Joseph K. Pickrell and Jonathan K. Pritchard. (“Inference of Population Splits and Mixtures from Genome-wide Allele
Frequency Data,” 2012, 16) arrived at the same result using TreeMix (see below).

I was going to start with DNA (in a day or two), but you beat me to it, so bifacial points it is.

Two things worth saying before the refutation begins; we're comparing Solutrean and pre-Clovis points, not Clovis points. So this is not for the
traditionalists that still refuse to acknowledge pre-Clovis culture.

Second, comparing knapping techniques is just as important as comparing points. Therefore, comparing a Solutrean point with a pre-Clovis point on the
basis that they do or do not look the same is but half the job done.

In their book "Across Atlantic Ice", Stanford and Bradley added a last minute note (page 110) about an excavation in 1970 of a 17th century colonial
homestead. A Solutrean Laurel leaf blade was uncovered below a clay chimney base. Jeff Speakman of the Smithsonian's analytical lab conducted an
X-ray fluorescence probe of the biface and compared results to French gun flints and Solutrean artifacts made of Grand Pressigny flint from France.
The biface was made of Grand Pressigny. At the time of its' discovery in 1971 it was concluded the biface was a relic brought over by colonial era
settlers. Standford says that because it was found below a clay chimney base, it's unlikely it belonged to a colonist. But because of the uncertainty
it is not the proof of the Solutrean theory. Close, but no cigar...

Earlier this year Joseph K. Pickrell and Jonathan K. Pritchard. (“Inference of Population Splits and Mixtures from Genome-wide Allele
Frequency Data,” 2012, 16) arrived at the same result using TreeMix (see below).

They summarized all the inferred migrations in the following list, with Russians being a proxy for Europeans receiving admixture from migrating
American Indians.

Originally posted by Hanslune
My opinion is that the hypnthesis is not proven by quality of the evidence provided for tool comparison between those stones found in Europe and
NA.

The plausibility of movement between Europe and NA along the Ice age sea ice

The present ambiguity in the DNA evidence

While I'm not skeptical about the possibility of people crossing from Europe into the Americas during the Ice Age, I'm skeptical about their being
sufficient numbers to make any sort of impact. As far as I know, early immigrations into America could be as far back as 30k years (given the 20k
date of Mesa Verde and other places)... but I don't feel I've studied cultures from that timeframe well enough to comment on the apparent dispersal
patterns.

If one assumes that there will be cultural diffusion, then perhaps (if we have sufficient older artifacts) we can trace several markers through time
and space from the coast to the interior and to the other coast.

Something I can look forward to studying in another four months or so. For now, other things occupy my time.

Originally posted by Hanslune
My opinion is that the hypnthesis is not proven by quality of the evidence provided for tool comparison between those stones found in Europe and
NA.

The plausibility of movement between Europe and NA along the Ice age sea ice

The present ambiguity in the DNA evidence

While I'm not skeptical about the possibility of people crossing from Europe into the Americas during the Ice Age, I'm skeptical about their being
sufficient numbers to make any sort of impact. As far as I know, early immigrations into America could be as far back as 30k years (given the 20k
date of Mesa Verde and other places)... but I don't feel I've studied cultures from that timeframe well enough to comment on the apparent dispersal
patterns.

If one assumes that there will be cultural diffusion, then perhaps (if we have sufficient older artifacts) we can trace several markers through time
and space from the coast to the interior and to the other coast.

Something I can look forward to studying in another four months or so. For now, other things occupy my time.

Enough to make an impact is another good point. I wish I could find some source that speaks to the Inuit experience of crossing sea ice/or navigation
along its edge. Will need to get back into the cultural anthro books in November. As I noted earlier I surmise that an easier way to the Americas
would have been by way of the Canaries and then what is now Brazil and then up the chain of islands to NA.

But we shall see, yeah I have four months of work to do too. Meet you back here in November.

Originally posted by Byrd
While I'm not skeptical about the possibility of people crossing from Europe into the Americas during the Ice Age, I'm skeptical about their being
sufficient numbers to make any sort of impact. As far as I know, early immigrations into America could be as far back as 30k years (given the 20k
date of Mesa Verde and other places)... but I don't feel I've studied cultures from that timeframe well enough to comment on the apparent dispersal
patterns.

So far, we have found thousands of Clovis and pre-Clovis points in ALL of the 48 mainland US states, and also in Mexico, Belize and Costa Rica. They
were present on the entire North American and Central American continent. We don't know their numbers, we have no human bones from this time period,
but they were all over the place. Their numbers should have been quite large.

Originally posted by Byrd
If one assumes that there will be cultural diffusion, then perhaps (if we have sufficient older artifacts) we can trace several markers through time
and space from the coast to the interior and to the other coast.

I haven't got the charts and the diagrams at hand right now, but they amass in fertile regions along the East Coast, then move North, West and South.
If the Bering Land Bridge theory is correct (which I think it is, it's the Bering Land Bridge ONLY that I put to question), then the older sites would
be found the further north you go. As of now this is not so. At present, the oldest pre-Clovis site is in Virginia, I believe. If the Solutrean
Connexion is right, then the older sites would be found East, and off the East coast, underwater. Time will work that one out.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.